Jennings v. Stripling

• Decision Date: 01 March 1907
• Parties: JENNINGS. v. STRIPLING.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

127 Ga. 778

56 S.E. 1026

JENNINGS.

v.STRIPLING.

Supreme Court of Georgia.

March 1, 1907.

1. Justices of the Peace — Jurisdiction — Amount in Controversy.

A summons in a justice's court required the defendant to appear and "answer the demand of B. H. Stripling in an action for damages for breach of contract in the sum of $100." Attached to the summons was a statement of the alleged cause of action, in which $100 was set forth as damages for the breach of a contract. Following this was an itemized statement showing damages in different amounts, resulting from various causes; the aggregate amount being $132.50. Following this statement were these words: "To amount written off and unclaimed, to bring case within J. P. jurisdiction. $32.50." Held, that the suit was within the jurisprudence of the justice's court. (Atkinson, J., dissenting.)

[Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see Cent. Dig. vol. 31, Justices of the Peace, §§ 170, 171, 329.]

2. Same—Statement—Contract—Action fob Breach—Evidence.

The cause of action attached to the summons was one arising ex contractu. It sufficiently put the defendant on notice as to what was the demand he was called upon to answer, and, under the liberal rules followed in justices' courts, there was no error in overruling the demurrer to such cause of action.

[Ed. Note.—for cases in point, see Cent. Dig. vol. 31, Justices of the Peace, §§ 307-323.]

3. Evidence—Opinion Evidence—Weight.

Jurors, in passing upon the testimony of witnesses who are called to give their opinion as to the value of services, are not absolutely bound by such opinion, but may exercise their own judgment, taking into consideration the nature of the service, the time required to perform it, and all the attendant circumstances.

[Ed. Note.—Por cases in point, see Cent. Dig. vol. 20, Evidence, §§ 2392-2400; vol. 46, Trial, § 739.]

4. Trial—Directing Verdict.

There being, under the evidence, matters properly for the determination of the jury, the court erred in directing a verdict (Syllabus by the Court.)

Error from Superior Court, Worth County; W. N. Spence, Judge.

Action by B. H. Stripling against J. T. Jennings. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendant brings error. Reversed.

Stripling sued Jennings In a justice's court. The summons cited the defendant "to answer the demand of B. H. Stripling in an action for damages for breach of contract in the sum of $100." The cause of action attached to the summons was as follows:

Warrior, Ga., December 21, 1903. J. T. Jennings Dr. to B. H. Stripling. To damages for breach of contract which was verbally made, but was substantially as follows: $100.00. On January 31, 1903, J. T. Jennings, the defendant in this case, agreed and contracted to furnish to B. IT. Stripling, the plaintiff, twenty-five acres of land, stock, and farm implements of necessity for making a crop thereon, and half the guano to be used in making said crop, and all the cotton seed to be used in fertilizing said Stripling's corn, and the house for said Stripling and family to live in while making the crop during the year 1903. In consideration of the above promise, said B. H. Stripling agreed and contracted to furnish the labor for making said crop, and half the guano to be thus used. Said crop was to be made on the place known as the John Robert's place, in the 1, 576th district, G. M., Worth county, and on the west side of Isabella and Nashville Roads. It was agreed and understood, as a part of this contract, that said J. T. Jennings should have all the cotton seed and half of everything else made of said crop except potatoes and what was made in the garden, and that said B. H. Stripling should have all the potatoes and all made in his garden and half of everything else made except cotton seed. The crop was to consist of about ten acres of corn, about fourteen acres of cotton, and one acre of potatoes. Immediately after the above contract was made, plaintiff moved to said place and began performance of his part of the contract, and continued thereat until April 1, 1903, when defendant broke the contract and drove plaintiff off the place, without any just cause whatever for so doing. Plaintiff claims actual damages as follows:

                -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                |To cost of moving to place contracted for                              |$ 2  |
                |                                                                       |00   |
                |-----------------------------------------------------------------------|-----|
                |To two months labor on said place, viz., February and March, at $18.00 |36 00|
                |-----------------------------------------------------------------------|-----|
                |To cost of moving away from place.                                     |2 00 |
                |-----------------------------------------------------------------------|-----|
                |To expense of later seeking other employment, April 1st to 23d, lost   |20 00|
                |time and traveling                                                     |     |
                |-----------------------------------------------------------------------|-----|
                |To house rent since April 1, 1903, at $2.50 per month                  |22 50|
                |-----------------------------------------------------------------------|-----|
                |To money borrowed from Bank of Tifton to meet necessary expenses in    |50 00|
                |complying with contract                                                |     |
                |-----------------------------------------------------------------------|-----|
                |                                                                       |$132 |
                |                                                                       |50   |
                |-----------------------------------------------------------------------|-----|
                |To amount written off and unclaimed, to bring case within J. P.        |32 50|
                |jurisdiction                                                           |     |
                |-----------------------------------------------------------------------|-----|
                |Balance due                                                            |100  |
                |                                                                       |00   |
                -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                

The defendant filed a plea In the justice's court, in which he denied any Indebtedness to the plaintiff, and specially pleaded that the plaintiff was lazy and idle and would not cultivate the land, and that the defendant told him he must either leave or work, and that the plaintiff, rather than work, left, and caused great damage to defendant; the dam ages being the rental value of 35 acres of land at $2 per acre, to wit, $70, for which defendant prayed a judgment against the plaintiff. The case was carried, by appeal, to the superior court. On the trial in the superior court a plea to the jurisdiction, which appears to have been filed in the justice's court, was insisted on. This plea set up that the justice's court had no jurisdiction, for the reason that the suit was for more than $100, and for the additional reason that the cause of action set forth was not one arising ex contractu, nor for injury to personal property. The judge struck this plea as insufficient in law, and error is assigned on this ruling. Before this plea was stricken, an amendment to the cause of action was allowed, which struck therefrom the item of $22.50 for house rent, and the item of $50 borrowed from the Bank of Tifton. The defendant then insisted on A demurrer, which appears also to have been filed in the justice's court. In this demurrer it was set up that no cause of action was set forth; that no bill of particulars was attached to the summons; that the cause of action contained a misjoinder, in that damages were prayed both for a violation of a contract and for a tort; that the manner in which the defendant broke his contract and in which the plaintiff was damaged was not set forth; that the last three items in the bill of particulars, aggregating $92, were not itemized, and It was not alleged how the defendant became liable for the two months' labor claimed in the Item of $36; that it was not shown why the defendant was liable to the plaintiff In any of the items set out In the plaintiff's suit; that the amount set out in the cause of action was more than $100, and the justice's court had no jurisdiction of the suit; that the suit was not an action ex contractu, nor for injury done to personal property; and that the alleged contract is unilateral. This demurrer was overruled, and the defendant assigns error upon this ruling. The case proceeded to trial, and at the conclusion of the evidence the court directed a verdict for the plaintiff in the sum of $54, and error is assigned thereon.

Payton & Hay, for plaintiff in error.

L.D. Passmore, for defendant In error.

COBB, P. J. (after stating the facts). 1. When there Is no law, in terms, regulating the matter, whether a creditor whose demand is created by express contract, such as a promissory note, can voluntarily abandon a part of his claim, or enter a credit upon It for the express purpose of reducing it within the jurisdiction of a given court, is a question upon which the authorities differ. See the numerous authorities cited in the opinion of Mr. Chief Justice Bleckley, In Stewart v. Thompson, 85 Ga. 831, 11 S. E. 1030. Attention Is called by the learned chief justice to the case of Cox v. Stanton, 58 Ga. 406, as aruling squarely on the negative line; and other cases, in which dicta to that effect appeared, are also cited. The Constitution declares: "Justices of the peace shall have jurisdiction in all civil cases arising ex contractu, and in cases of injuries or damages to personal property, when the principal sum does not exceed one hundred dollars." Civ. Code 1895, § 5856. In Cox v. Stanton the suit was upon a promissory note for $129.28, upon which the holder had indorsed a credit of $29.28, so as to make the amount claimed only $100. The debtor did not consent to this relinquishment, and...